ahem, not to mention C&D seems to be rather Honda biased when they say an rsx is capable of 14.9 but they could only muster a 14.3 in a srt...ahem

 

2003 - 14.1 @ 102 (No limited Slip)
2004 - 13.9 @ 103
2005 - 14.3 @ 99 (ACR)



I'm not gena comment

 

I am, 04's the best, harhar :P

 

Honda biased? Where did they say the RSX was faster? Is 14.3 still not faster than 14.9?

They gave the Neon a perfect score in powertrain performance. They also commented on its noise and vibration issues and its uncomfortable seats and the fact that it may be a tad too powerful to gracefully get it out of a corner.

The Cheap Speed thing has ALWAYS been about who can squeeze decent performance out of an affordable car without sacraficing other things. Of course the Neon was faster, but the Subaru and the Acura edged it out in other categories. Is this so difficult to understand?

 

Ever driven both? Can assure you the srt is more than 1/2 a second quicker than a RSX in the 1/4 given equal drivers. Think they gave the srt a bad time/rsx a good time to make the comparison not look as bad. Given most comparo's with the srt's have em right around 13.9(the 05 ACR should be even faster than the 04's, given the better suspension, lighter wheels, and wider tires).
But back on topic. My main problem with C&D is their Honda/BMW bias mostly...but, more so.. If you're going to do a comparison about 'performance' oriented cars, than make the point scale represent that. Interior/lil extra's should be noted, but not worth as many points as performance categories. Course, C&D isn't really directed at performance, as it is cars in general, which is what they have to fall back on.

p.s. A tad bit to powerful coming out of the corner? I guess coming out of the corner slow is more preferable to the guys at C&D.

 

They gave it a PERFECT score in drivetrain performance. How is that trying to make it look bad? Did you expect it to score better than perfect?

I don't really think things like refinement and NVH (things both Honda and BMW are VERY good at, while still keeping the driver involved and making the OVERALL driver experience more enjoyable) are "little extras" that should merely be noted.

Actually they prefer fast. But tire smoke coming out of a corner is generally bad. A Subaru or Acura hooking up and pulling out of a corner is faster than a Neon spinning the tires while it plows toward the outside wall

 

According to the AutoX results, the neon's power didnt hinder it at all, seeing as how it came ahead of both the Subaru and the RSX. If it wouldnt hurt it in a low speed situation, where loss of traction due to power is most common (IE autocross), then why would it hurt it in a situation where you're traveling at a higher speed, and your overall torque output due to gearing is lower than what you would see at an autox?

 

The autox is where the problem showed itself.

I'm sure they eventually got used to it since they obviously got comfortable enough to get it around the course faster than all the other cars. But the complaint was still there. That's all I was originally trying to say.

 

I'll agree on the seats being tight, but you have to give them a few hundred miles to form. I had friends when i first got my SRT that refused to sit in the front seats, but a month later the seats felt 1000x better because they loosened up. In my opinion this is the way it should be. bAck seats in a SRT are garbage, Power windows in the rear pfft I'm not gena go there. loud exhaust? COem on C/D people buying these cars dont care about that 75% will put on a even louder exhaust within the first month. I have arguably the loudest exhaust next to a Dump pipe and it really isnt THAT lound inside.

As for the SRT in corners and how it performs on a oval track.... All I'm going to say is the ONE time me and a few other SRT's went to langley freaky Friday John (Kickercar) finished 2nd behind the 240 (?), the carammo the wrecked finished 3rd (well if you call it a finish) And I finished 4th, I was knocked out by John and I'm sure if he hadnt knocked me out I could have beat the camarro. Also in the time attack I got 6th out of 27 cars and I ONLY did one lap. All this considering none of us had ANY suspension mods and we all had never done that style racing before. So dont doubt the SRT's handaling in corners and such. I think every civic that was there was a well built Turbo/IC'ed one. I was impressed with all the Civics, much better then what you see on the street performance wise anyway.



I agree allin all the Acura-S is a better "overall Everyday drivers" car but lets break down the title "Cheap Speed, Round 23"

Cheep = SRT-4
Speed = SRT-4
Round 23 = assume its the 23rd time they have done this.

I just think the title dosent match the article, I think it was a great article though. BUT the point of my post originally was to show what the readers had voted in comparison to there pics

 

looks like they took the poll down, but last I checked it was like 52% Cobalt, 26% SRT